Rumor has it...

 Public opinion—shaped by information, primarily concerning others—is becoming an increasingly potent weapon, as one’s public image often serves as the ultimate arbiter of success or failure. The true reality, however, lies hidden in the background—and is sometimes entirely at odds with the facts. The motives behind crafting a public image for others are generally negative; they are rarely benign, often serving either direct commercial interests or specific, commissioned agendas.

It is quite common to encounter individuals who construct their own public image through the lens of others. They have plenty to say about these other people, yet reveal very little about themselves. In effect, they divert attention away from their own selves toward others—often potential rivals—thereby obscuring their own true image.

Ultimately, the root of this behavior lies in human nature. Today, we often say that information is the most valuable commodity; yet, we frequently overlook the veracity of that information. Those who spread malicious rumors—when the information is false—rarely face consequences, and if they do, it is usually too late—only after the damage has already been inflicted upon someone else. By the time any penalty is imposed, the victim’s good name or reputation has often already been destroyed. This is precisely why those with malicious intent favor rumors—spread verbally, whether on the street, in a bar, or in similar casual settings. A good example of why this happens is the lawsuits filed against journalists; once something is published, the aggrieved party—whether genuinely harmed or merely perceiving themselves to be—gains tangible evidence (the publication itself) of defamation or the presentation of falsehoods, making journalists frequent targets of litigation. If such claims were made verbally—on the street or in a bar—those who feel wronged, or who believe their reputation or public image has been damaged, would struggle to find the evidence needed for a lawsuit.

The future of interpersonal relations is rarely bright when competition for resources intensifies, and when people prefer listening to someone talk about others rather than about themselves. We would rather hear "the neighbor has this or that" than "I have this or that." As these claims spread from person to person and permeate society at large, almost everyone forgets to verify the information about the individual in question—if, in fact, they possess any reliable information about them at all.

One can also find instances of lobbyists working to cultivate a positive image; however, such groups—which draw others into a sort of "he-said-she-said" pyramid—appear less frequently. They are primarily found in the marketplace. After all, we all enjoy eating the same chocolate as others—especially those we deem important—rarely stopping to consider whether it is actually the flavor we personally prefer. In terms of our psycho-social makeup, it seems that, as humans, we often remain at a level characterized by a desire for others to fare poorly—or, conversely, a tendency to model ourselves after others, particularly those who are successful. We are also more inclined to listen to stories about someone’s slip-up or downfall than about their success. Furthermore, we often contribute to labeling and judging others by spreading information—whether true or false. Consequently, an individual—whom we may intend to harm, or perhaps harm inadvertently—can end up trapped in an abyss of misinformation and a distorted public image.

It is even worse when individuals become submerged in public judgment—predominantly negative—despite being entirely innocent. In such cases, the negative label attached to someone through the dissemination of disparaging information escalates into a "public tribunal," or even a public lynching or extrajudicial persecution. Such extrajudicial actions are often pursued precisely when formal legal channels are inaccessible—or when the underlying information itself is questionable. For this reason, it is extremely rare to see formal criminal prosecution—whether against those who committed the original act or against those who disseminated the information.

Ideally, individuals should construct their own public image, which ought to be grounded in factual reality. Those who gather information about others—whether by virtue of their professional competence or a legitimate right to access such data—should ensure that the information is obtained from reliable, and preferably official, sources.